Why are Male Rats Considered the Baseline of Science?

By: Bayan Rouhani

---

Scientists consider male rats to be the standard in areas of research. While seemingly innocent, this assumption is just the tip of an iceberg of androcentrism (the prioritization of the male view, experience, interests as the norm) present in science, and how our biological discoveries are skewed in favor of the male body.

Kathleen Okruhlik demonstrates in her article “Gender and the Biological Sciences” how the male body is considered to be the standard of health. Opting to neglect the female body for its abundance of problems described as “nuisances”. As a result, science creates solutions and standards often unfavorable for nearly half of its recipients. In this paper, I plan to assist Kathleen Okruhlik’s claim that there is a startling presence of androcentrism and bias present in science that threatens the validity of its research.

Science is often touted as the objective, unbiased standard. A neutral source of

information that explores all avenues without prejudice. Especially crucial today with mass

amounts of misinformation circulating social media. Science is the wall on which we lean to

verify or disprove misinformation without bias. Yet within its walls, science is still home to

concerning levels of gender bias and androcentrism. Scientific research is done for the male

body, the female body an afterthought. Kathleen Okruhlik argues this claim using lab rats as

examples. In her text, Okruhlik discusses how the “ideal healthy lab rat is [also] male”, how “his body, his hormones, and his behaviors define the norm”. Female lab rats are imperfect models of science. There are too many unknowns in the female body, such as hormones, described as “nuisance variables that muck up the works” (Okruhlik 30). This ideology neglects the female body, if medicines or products are tested on male rats for convenience, then only male bodies benefit from the research.

From an outside perspective, this rationale could seem justifiable. Why would a scientist

use a female lab rat when a male is more of a clean slate? Not only would It be more expensive but is also more time consuming. Male rats don’t suffer from hormonal imbalances. They are easier to handle, cheaper to acquire, and more abundant. Not only do these traits make the final results more consistent, they also give scientists more control over the experiment and the illusion of a more objective or unbiased result.

While the choice to use male rats is seemingly one done out of convenience and the

pursuit of objectivity, it is nearly anything but. Male rats being the scientific standard is almost

purely based on social norms and ideologies. Female biology is not a deviation from the norm, it is the norm. The mistake scientists have made is assuming that male and female biology stem are identical at a root level. Female biology is a norm just as male biology is. Regardless, scientists use of male rats as a biological default displays how social norms have influenced and constrained science. When only male biology is used in testing to reach conclusions on health, medicines, or diseases. These conclusions only indicate the universal truth based on male biology.

This leaves the female with incorrect assumptions about her body, and potentially

harmful perceptions of her own biology. For instance, if a drug is created and tested exclusively on male lab rats, there are no foundations for how this treatment reacts to the female body. A drug designed to reduce acne in a man’s body, could be less effective, make the acne worse, or be generally unsafe for a woman to take. This is also indicative of the bias and inequality present in health politics.

Those who set the standards feel no need to cover all their bases, as a man’s body is the cleanest, simplest version of a woman’s, therefore what works for the man must work for the woman! It would not be ridiculous to argue that the male superiority complex has at least a partial hand in the perseverance of male models despite the rest of societies efforts to be more inclusive. It is without a doubt that this is the result of male domination in STEM related fields, but as these fields grow more diverse, the continued lack of progress towards a universal science can be explained no other way.

Since it is true that a man’s biology and a woman’s are different, one could counter

Okruhliks’ claim by defending scientists of the past. Science, and all STEM fields used to be male dominated, and surrounded by men, it is hard to put yourself into the shoes of a woman. It is also true even today that a female rat does introduce a multitude of unwanted variables similar to hormonal fluctuations. They would argue that research is not a cheap endeavor, and it is important to make whatever funding is available stretch to get the most value possible in an effort to benefit the most people. They could acknowledge Okruhliks’ argument while also arguing that the world we live in is the product of male domination in most academic and labor-intensive fields. Of course, the world is more progressive today, and women and men work alongside each other as colleagues, but change does not happen overnight and the world we live in Is a byproduct of a different time.

Those objections do not take into account the real-world consequences of ignoring

biological differences, which cannot be comparable to a hormonal lab rat in a cage. While it is

true that the world today is a byproduct of a different time, there are still many practices in

place that go uncontested that reek of androcentrism. These practices continue to support the beliefs of our close-minded ancestors and perpetuate the problem we aim to solve. The danger of assuming the male body is a neutral default is grimly present in car safety. Take the safety features of a car for example. All of a car’s safety features are built using the male body as a base. Seatbelts are designed around men, airbags are designed around men. Women are 73% more likely to suffer injuries in car accident and 17% more likely to die then men (CNN). It was not until 2022 that the first female crash test dummy was made. This runs parallel to the medical field. Just like how a seatbelt designed for a man is more likely to harm a woman, a medicine tested on men is more likely to harm or even kill a woman.

Ultimately, the continued use and reliance on male models in science (and other fields)

bares a conflict between objectivity and social bias. While excluding female models in an effort to simplify research, design, or lower costs is beneficial in the short term, it taints the

discoveries validity and safety to its audience. To be truly objective, scientists must

acknowledge the diversity in biology and not view it as a nuisance, but rather a truth that must

be explored. In order to truly move towards a universal science (ultimate truth), society must dismantle the concept of the male body as the neutral baseline and allow for the introduction

of a new model.

While science is often touted as being the unbiased standard of knowledge, it is not free

from bias and androcentrism. The world around us is created with the man in mind, and the

woman an afterthought. While some time ago this would have been permissible, it is no longer justifiable, and we must move towards a more universal science. With the potential harm and means to be more accommodating and share the world with our female counterparts it is our duty as a society to do so. Therefore, we can derive that male rats are considered the neutral baseline of science because we live in an androcentric society. Unfortunately, science has not gone unscathed and there are scenes of androcentrism present even today. It is up to us as a more evolved and inclusive society to phase out the misunderstandings or shows of bias that currently plague scientific research in pursuit of a more inclusive, universal truth.

---

Bibliography

Okruhlik, Kathleen. “Gender and the Biological Sciences.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy,

Supplementary Volume 20 (1994): 21–42.

CNN. (2022, December 15). In car crashes, women are more likely to die than men. This new

crash test dummy could help save lives. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/15/world/female-car-

crash-test-dummy-spc-intl/index.html